Out of love, there are many people who feed stray dogs on a permanent and targeted basis. So when a stray dog hurts someone, is the feeder liable? In recent days, a case before the Beijing Shun Yi District Court has awakened a large number of dog lovers. An employee of a company fed stray dogs for a long period of time, and the dog was hospitalized for injuries caused by bites of the late eights and, shortly after his release, the elderly died of other diseases. The Shun Yi District Court recently closed the case and the defendant, Park and Forest, awarded the elderly families more than $63,000 in fees, including medical expenses. While caring for animals is a good thing, appropriate protective measures must be taken to prevent rescue animals from hurting people.
The company's employees are feeding stray dogs.
The old man died a month after being chased.
One day in June 2022, as the late eight-year-old Master Li was walking around a nursery, two stray dogs suddenly came out of the side and kept chasing him. As a result of shock, during his escape, Master Li broke his left lower limbs and broke his bones, leaving the hospital after eight days of hospital treatment, during which the head of the company, Mr. Shi, had assisted him in his care at the hospital. A month later, Master Li was hospitalized again because of kidney disease and died in December 2022 as a result of organs failure.
The family considered that the dog's bite was the cause of Mr. Lee's kidney disease and therefore appealed to the court for compensation for the costs of treatment due to fractures, as well as 50 per cent of the costs of treatment and moral damages during the hospitalization of the kidney, totalling more than $150,000.
One of the defendant companies argued that it had not raised the stray dogs involved in the case, that the employee Zhang had simply fed the stray dogs out of love, that the act was not an official act and that any act by the stray dogs had nothing to do with the company. In addition, there is insufficient evidence available to establish that there was any causal link between Master Li ' s fall injury and subsequent death and the alleged dangerous behaviour of the company or stray dog, and therefore the plaintiff ' s claim was rejected.
The court found that the company actually had a dog involved.
The award of compensation for the costs associated with Li's fracture.
During the trial, two villagers testified as witnesses. According to the villagers, the dog in question was only often running out of the garden of the nursery to chase the pedestrians. Another villager, Suh, claimed that two dogs had come out of the gate of the fence from the nursery to chase Li Chia, one side of which fell on the ground, and said that the old man at the turn knew that two dogs were always in the “jacking lane”.
The court held that the dog, although originally a stray dog, had improperly fed the company, which had led to its dependence on the food fed, and that it had objectively “watched the home” and pursued the roadman, and therefore found that the company had in fact maintained the dog involved.
In addition, the Court found that it was highly probable that Master Li would be pursued and injured by the dog involved while walking on a car and therefore the company was responsible for the injury to the elderly. Master Li had no fault in the damage and should not mitigate corporate responsibility.
With regard to the family ' s claim that the two subsequent visits and deaths of Master Li were related to the incident in this case, the court did not support it because the family had not submitted the corresponding evidence. Finally, the court ordered the defendant company to pay a total of 63,000 yuan for medical expenses, transportation, nutrition, hospital meals, nursing and assistive devices.
The judge's statement
Article 1245 of the Civil Code of the People ' s Republic of China provides that, if an animal is raised to cause damage to another person, the animal breeder or manager shall be liable for the violation, provided that it can be shown that the damage was caused by the victim ' s wilful or gross negligence and that the liability may be waived or mitigated. In this case, the fact that the employees of the defendant company had permanently and regularly fed stray dogs at the workplace to settle them, and the fact that the company ' s officials had not prevented the matter, and had not taken any control over the dogs, was a dangerous act for the public environment in the vicinity of the nursery and was an unreasonable implication for the public good. The defendant company should therefore be liable for damage caused by the stray dog in pursuit of the passerby at the feeding site.
When it comes to vagabonds, many people touch their hearts and give help, yet the more regular feeding behaviour of people in love inevitably leads to food dependency, which tends to lead to a concentration of vagabonds living in specific areas. The risk to the public environment in a given region is bound to be increased by the fact that homeless animals may carry a large number of strains and have a certain degree of harmful properties, while the low control of homeless animals by feeding them. Thus, in the case of a de facto relationship between a target feeder and a homeless animal, the target feeder is liable for damage caused by the animal.
I saw the verdict.
There was a lot of noise.
The comments of the highest level
"Good judgment.
Self-motion love.
It's no less than a personal gain.”
There's a lot of people who don't understand.
"Good deeds don't pay for it."
Isn't it cold?
Cause of death around the elderly
There's a lot of talk going on.
A question has been raised.
How can kidney disease blame the dog feeder?
The family is blackmailing the company.
There's some Cope.
"The old man really didn't fall."
There's a lot of people who say,
Unsettled feeding can cause follow-up problems.
It's really sad for a homeless animal.
We'll get through the adoption process.
It's right to love small animals.
What do you think about that?